Kucinich: Libyan foray represents ‘new international gangsterism’

[jakeXT]

An anti-war Democrat warned Tuesday that the Obama administration’s foray into Libya sets the stage for a new era of “international gangsterism.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said the five-month-old intervention — now being led by NATO — sets a dangerous precedent for unilateral attacks on sovereign nations. He said Western forces “illegally” picked favorites in Libya’s civil war, and he called on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes by military leaders on all sides of the conflict.

“NATO’s top commanders may have acted under color of international law, but they are not exempt from international law,” Kucinich said in a news release. “If members of the Gadhafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO’s top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing.

“Otherwise, we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.”

...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/177957-kucinich-libyan-foray-represents-new-international-gangsterism

[Scurrilous]

1. Residual effects from his attendence at Hempfest no doubt. n/t

[sabrina 1]

4. I guess you felt the same way when he accurately described the Iraq

War in pretty much the same way. Another foreign war under the pretext of 'humanitarian' concerns. I remember rightwingers back then slamming me for NOT supporting the people of Iraq, and for loving the Dictator, Saddam Hussein. They really believed that is why we were there.

Kucinich as always, is right and not afraid to speak the truth. The rest of Congress is too chicken to state the facts, or most of them anyhow.

I hear the 'boots on the ground' are standing by now waiting to go in and 'help keep the peace'. Just as predicted. Add Libya to the list of long, violent occupations, where the US will creep in over time after they think we have forgotten the original propaganda that it wasn't about oil. They know how short our memories are.

Go Kucinich. We need hundreds more like him in Congress and we would not have these horrific, illegal and unnecessary wars to deal with.

[Denzil_DC]

9. "Kucinich as always, is right"

Yup. He's infallible. He'll show those worshippers.

[Fuddnik]

14. When you're a criminal state, it doesn't matter.

[gholtron]

11. I'm with you.

We should just sit back and watch Gaddafi slaughter those people who just want democracy and want to elect their own government. Now I'm pissed with the French for even helping the patriots here during the revolutionary war. How dare they. :sarcasm:

[Demeter]

18. Turn off the Fox, Brother.

It's rotting your mind.

[gholtron]

20. Yeah you're right

I should have been at the hemp fest instead.

[Fuddnik]

21. Things would be clearer.

I'm sure we've got our own little "New" Ghaddafi or Saddam riding in to save the day for freedom and deocrazy. Who will also be willing to give away their oil.

[sabrina 1]

23. Better than watching propaganda on the TeeVee.

[sabrina 1]

22. As we should have done when Saddam was putting babies in ovens

etc. etc. :eyes:

[eridani]

47. And how many did we kill in Iraq compared to Saddam?

Who, after all, didn't blow up Iraq's infrastructure. How many will die in an extended civil war in Libya? Those who say that can't happen should recall the blase attitude toward Sunni-Shi'ite hostilities in Iraq.

[emilyg]

45. +1

[_ed_]

13. Nice Ad Hominem

Do you have any substantive legal arguments to explain how this war can be squared with the War Powers Act or the Constitution?

[The Northerner]

2. K&R n/t

[The Magistrate]

3. Pretty Silly Stuff, Sir, On Balance

People need to shed the idea that the word 'illegal' means 'things I do not personally approve of'.

There was nothing either illegal or unilateral here: the United Nations Security Council acted directed action be taken, in light of the new 'responsibility to protect' doctrine, which is rooted in the same doctrine of universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity which is avidly supported by most people who denounce the action in Libya. Security Council decisions are international law, and there is no solid case that the War Powers act was violated domestically. It is far from the case that a war crime has been committed simply because a civilian has been killed or injured in a military operation, and at present there is no particular reason to believe, or even to imagine, that NARO actions constituted crimes.

[sabrina 1]

5. Actually most legal analysts, now that they know what actually

happened, agree that NATO has violated the resolution. NATO spokespersons were questioned last week about exactly what they were doing as there concerns they were overstepping their role. The spokesperson claimed they were 'NOT TAKING SIDES' despite claims to the contrary.

That of course, has now been proven to be false. Like Iraq, this was an illegal invasion, not a humanitarian mission as claimed, although hardly anyone in the world, except for a few people in the US, ever believed that. We would have to be so gullible to accept that fairy tale. The Brits, still clinging to their dreams of Empire, are not so subtle about what is going on there. They have not denied now that they, France and the US, has had Agents on the Ground, I guess they were wearing shoes, not boots though, for months. And we know now that NATO had people among the rebels to help coordinate the final assault on Tripoli which most definitely exceeded the actions they were permitted to take according to the Resolution.

Good for Kucinich, he is the conscience of Congress who never shies away from telling the inconvenient truth they do not want told.

Odd how when he told the truth about Bush and his war lies, no one on the left thought him silly then.

[The Magistrate]

6. Not Really, Ma'am

The resolution allowed a tremendous lee-way, and was in any case a pretext, which all understood from the start. the intention was to see to the defeat of Ghaddafi, and no one involved had any illusions about that. Where illusions existed was in what quantity of force would be required for this end, and how much time it would take. The resolution did not bar personnel; it barred an occupation force, that is, a force opf troops of sufficient size and power as to consitute a garrison of the place, displacing a countries own military and civil authorities, and acting in their lieu. Even small detachments of machine-gunners and a few artillert batteries would not be in violation of this restriction, and certainly spotters and detachments of instructors do not violate it.

In any case, once countries recognized the rebel council as the legitimate government of Libya, the U.N. resolution is no longer the guiding authority: a government can request foreign military assistance, and it is the business of no one else what form that assistance takes.

And by the way, Ma'am, Rep. Kucinich talked a lot of tosh during the Bush regime, and was often called out over it here....

[spooked911]

7. how lovely that we have you to apologize for a needless war and the killing of civilians

congratulations, sir.

[The Magistrate]

8. Where Do You Note An Apology, Sir?

To call an act a crime requires that act to have violated a law, and it is simply a fact that injuring or killing non-combatants in military operations frequently violates no law. In order for it to be a crime, certain standards must be met. A military action with the sole purpose of killing non-combatants is of course a grave crime. A military action carried out without reasonable precautions being taken against injury to non-combatants is a crime, though of a far lesser grade. A military action undertaken knowing there is risk of injury to non-combatants is not a crime if the direct military value of the operation is considered great enough to outweigh that risk, or if the enemy is immediately engaged in perfidious conduct (n this line of analysis, fighting from positions chosen to be unassailable except at risk to non-combatants). It is still debatable, of course, what a 'reasonable precaution' is or is not, or what 'direct military value sufficient to outweigh that risk' is, because no war crimes tribunal has yet bothered to judge such questions; war crimes tribunals to date have been quite busy dealing with clear-cut instances of open criminality, with cases of prisoners, usually non-combatant prisoners, in custody being killed, usually in wholesale lots, and prolonged military operations aimed directly at killing non-combatants. No court has yet ruled on whether a crime has been committed when, say, someone aims at a tank in a city street, and the resultant explosion kills a child in a near-by building. There would be a great many factors to consider, and so far, not much by way of precedent for guidance....

[Bluenorthwest]

16. I note that it is interesting, to read that 'killing frequently violates

no law' from an administration that on other occasions, makes a great, loud fuss about "God In The Mix" in regard to horrific violation of the law in which one person loves another. So the same crowd that beats their chests and shouts about-yes, SIR, Biblical LAW when they wish to vomit on the rights of their neighbors, then turns around and claims that slaughter of civilians 'frequently violates NO law'. Except that it violates the same set of laws that are imposed on me and my family by religious fakes who like to 'frequently kill' while screaming about God's Laws at gay people.
The grade of the irony is steep and long. No laws against killing, but you got your laws against my family.
It is as if the OFA crowd pulls out a set of verbiage to rationalize the standard of the day, be that killing non combatants because no law exists to stop it or opposing civil rights for GLBT people because of 'Biblical Laws' from a neurotic old tent maker in the Roman Levant.
That bread you butter, it is buttered on both sides. The fingers will get greasy either way you flip it.
Just amazing that folks dare say "God is in the mix" one day, about love, then go off on the subject of 'no rules for killing'.
Would it break your moderate centrist hearts to pick one set of standards, and just live with them? Biblical Law of God or otherwise, but you see, dear tight heart, not one standard one day, another the next. The President and his ardent supporters have long ago claimed loudly to follow the Bible. That is the entire 'reasoning' the President presents for opposing equal rights. Yet you claim that law does not even exist. No such thing as rules about killing kids in battle, none at all, God is not in THAT mix, oh no.
It must hurt trying to 'splain the high morality one day, the zero morality the next. God, He is in the Mix, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Sundays. The rest of the week is a free kill zone. Hallelujah, the rockets are flying!

It just sounds ludicrous, and all the affected verbiage does not clean up that contradictory, situational ethic. Sir.

[The Magistrate]

24. My Purpose, Sir, Is Simply To State What The Actual Law Regarding Military Operations Is

This has nothing to do with campaigns by Christian fundamentalist against homosexuals, or the political positions in regard to that adopted by President Obama and his administration.

[spooked911]

37. if you're not apologizing for it

you certainly seem to be excusing it.

[gholtron]

10. self delete

[Demeter]

19. And just because some small bunch of old guys voted for it, it's okay?

Even the Mafia can have a structure and policy manual...and follow it as if their lives depended on it. That doesn't make it right or legal or moral. It just makes it consistent.

It's the lying about it, to assuage the moralists, that I object to. If you are going to go out and kill people for their oil or gold or real estate, be up front about it.

[The Magistrate]

26. It Makes It Legal, Ma'am

And that is the point under discussion.

We are in agreement that honesty and forthrightness are an ornament to most any enterprise....

[sabrina 1]

25. Actually the Resolution did not allow NATO to 'take sides' nor

was 'regime change' part of the resolution which they themselves continually emphasized when questioned about their role.

Iow, the Resolution barred NATO from assisting in the toppling of the Qaddafi regime and they have never denied that. Now with evidence available that they were doing that, all along apparently, no person concerned about the rule of law can condone their actions. It is now being said by eye-witnesses that NATO, supposedly on a mission to 'protect civilians' may have killed more civilians than the Qadaffi regime.

Foreign countries had no justification for recognizing any government in Libya other than the one already there. Were they elected, this group? By what authority can a foreign nation or nations 'recognize' a rebel group in another country as the 'legitimate' government? That alone shows how involved the Western powers were, once again, in an Arab nation's business. And now of course, that wonderful 'government' they illegally and without authority, 'recognized', has murdered one of their own leaders.

It should frighten anyone, and I'm sure it does frighten other countries, that the Western Colonialists can simply declare anyone in their countries 'legitimate' and then use that phony government to transfer the country's wealth where it is more available to foreign entities. I can't believe anyone would not see the implicitions of this. I hope no foreign entity ever recognizes eg, 'The Teabaggers' here if they ever decide to 'take back their country' as they have promised. I wonder how supportive we would be of such a thing, were it to happen to us, even if we hated our own government?

As for Kucinich, airc, he was 100% accurate regarding most of his claims about Bush's illegal war on Iraq, including the final takeover of Iraq's oil, approved of by the US Congress, to its shame. And here in the US, we never saw the uprising in Iraq over that signover and without Kucinich, we would not even know it had happened. But the Iraqis knew and their peaceful protests were squashed, brutally, by the 'Democratic' puppet government we installed.

I feel sorry for the sincere people in Libya who have had their rebellion taken over by the usual suspects and are likely to end up regretting, as the Iraqis do, ever allowing NATO to 'help' them. Although most of the original protestors have long been side-lined and replaced by US approved 'ex-patriots' among others. Which is when I personally realized I was supporting another oil grab by the European/US alliance and stopped supporting it.

[The Magistrate]

28. The Resolution, Ma'am, Read Closely, Allowed This Action

Its open-endedness was breath-taking, and much remarked on at the time it was promulgated.

Public staetments by government officials are generally best disregarded, particularly where questions of force and diplomacy are concerned: 'don't watch the mouth, watch the hands' applies.

Governments can recognize any group they damned well please as the legitimate governing authority of another country; there is no legal restriction whatever on this, though there are fashions, and no one wants to look too silly, so generally no one recognizes as the legitimate government of a country any body which does not have actual control over a fair portion of its ground, and wield an appreciable armed force.

There is no point to rehashing Rep. Kucinich over Ira, what your commentary on recent events in Libya here is an open record. You commenced by declaring Ghaddahfi was the puppet and tool of the West, and then once the rebellion seemed to have some prospects of being something more than a forlorn hope, decided Ghaddahfi was the true representative of the Libyan people and their best interests, and shifted to denouncing the rebellion as a western plot against the people of Libya. A diagnosis of 'ideological whiplash' seems in order, and warm compresses on the nape of the neck are recommended to ease the pain....

[sabrina 1]

29. You are completely inaccurate in your assessment of my

position on Libya. I have never changed that position. Qadaffi WAS used as a tool of the West, please show me my statement contradicting that. In fact I have repeated it and provided the photographic evidence of that fact just recently. He was not a very compliant tool however. And that is why the West had to go take him out.

Please do not speak for me I am very capable of speaking for myself.

The hypocrisy of the West which was willing to 'take him back into the fold' was my problem and still is. Back when Bush did this, I objected to it then, but since Democrats were also on board, there was not much that could be done.

I initially supported the uprising as I did the Egytians, the Tunisians and the sadly quashed attempt by the Iraqis and all the other uprisings against brutal Regimes in the ME and Africa, SO LONG AS THEY WERE LEGITIMATE, and NOT backed by the Colonial powers who we know will eventually do what they always do, install their own puppets (see Iraq and Afghanistan) and take over teh resources (see Iraq again).

I'll try to make my position clear for you since you have so misrepresented it. I supported the Libyan uprising UNTIL it became clear that it was being taken over by Western influences whose interference in the affairs of these countries has brought nothing but brutality and sorrow, down through history.

As for Foreigners recognizing 'governments' that the populations have had no say in, sorry, but just because we are accustomed to bullying weaker nations, still doesn't make it legitimate at all. The current Libyan 'government' has zero legitimacy. It is a creation of foreign powers.

Qadaffi is a brutal tyrant. And the West helped keep him in power when it suited them, backed him up when he suppressed uprisings in the East of Libya (they were Al Queda then remember?), until he began threatening their profit margins, and then, as they often do, switched positions and decided to SAY he was a brutal dictator. Qadaffi was Libya's problem, and we never should have supported him. Just like we never should have supported Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saddam Hussein and all the other dicators we have supported and still support. But to say I supported him when the exact opposite is true, could not be more false.

Again, I will ask you not to characterize my position when I believe I have been very clear all along. I do not support Imperial invasions of weak, foreign countries. I support the US getting out of all countries where we are not wanted and do not belong, and spending OUR resources on alternative sources of energy making us less dependent on the resources of other nations, which do not belong to us.

It's disappointing btw, to see the same charges aimed at those of us by the right, when we opposed the Iraq War under Bush, here on DU. 'You're a Saddam lover' eg. Now, if we object to yet another takeover of another oil-producing Arab nation we are a 'Qadaffi lover'. I thought we were better than that.

[The Magistrate]

31. You Know, Ma'am, Once You Put It Out There, the Audience Decides What You Mean....

And put bluntly, nothing in this cri de couer really argues with my characterization of your body of work on the matter.

[sabrina 1]

32. I am very proud of my body of work on Libya.

There is no cri de couer to attempt to alter your obviously incorrect interpretation of it. I stand by everything I said and as you point out, it is there for all to see, and I hope they do go look at it, although I doubt many are as interested as you appear to be.

Here, eg, is one of my posts kindly discovered for me by Joshcrier which makes my point perfectly regarding how untrustworthy the West is and how they can switch positions depending on 'their interests' and how those interetsts most often conflict with the interests of the countries they invade. I will never support what you support. But that's fine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x504604

I thought those Libyan leaders had a chance of taking control of their own country back then. But when it became apparent that was never going to happen and we didn't hear much from the original rebels, who I was following on Twitter and heard them on NPR and elsewhere and saw the disillusionment as it also became apparent to them that their rebellion was being taken over, I could no long support it.

Not to worry, I only worry about people whose opinions I value and who do not go out of their way to misinterpret those they disagree with. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

34. Good For You, Ma'am --- Though They Do Say Pride Goeth Before the Fall

"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[sabrina 1]

36. Fall? This is not to do with me or you, is it?

Despite your trying to make it so. You seem to not like it if someone disagrees with you. Personally I like it, as it is has always been those with whom I have disagreed the most who have taught me the most. :-)

I am proud to have been for the Libyan people from way back in 2006 when Bush brought Qadaffi into the fold and made him even more powerful in his own country than he was before, dashing any hopes of those in Libya who wanted him gone, until now, when he is being replaced by a puppet government which will not be much better for the Libyan people. See Iraq. Consistency on principles makes things easier.

[joshcryer]

49. "Replaced by a puppet government" another unproven allegation, btw.

Please provide non-Gaddafi propaganda links for that, too! I'd be extremely interested!

[joshcryer]

39. You will be unable to provide one link backing up the "installing a puppet" idea.

Not one link. Because it's not factual, it is dishonest, as usual, and it is just scarmongering.

Meanwhile you will not actually be able to articulate with backed up links how Gaddafi was screwing over oil companies, because he wasn't. How his monetary policies were screwing over foreign investors, because they weren't adopted.

Every single idea you have about why the intervention happened outside of "The rebels asked for help," is false spin intended to give sympathy to the Gaddafi regime.

[sabrina 1]

41. I certainly can provide links to show how Qadaffi was creating

problems for the Corps who had contracts in Libya. What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you ever read anything beyond when you, late to the game, first got involved in all of this? Have you read the Wikeleaks cables eg, or the Bloomberg reports from 2009? And as always, it appears to be impossible for you to stick to the topic without resorting to personal insults, one of the reasons why your credibility has suffered so much. I was writing about Libya back in 2006. Did you support the US's embrace of him then? Were you complaining last year when the same people now calling him a 'brutal dictator' finally, which is what he is and always was, although they were more than willing to overlook it, were bending over backwards to keep responding to his demands?

I never saw you complain about the acceptance of him by the West. Didn't you care about the Libyan people living under that brutal dictatorship back then? Just months ago? I know I did. But NATO didn't. I despise hypocrisy especially in our lying leaders. And you clearly are way out of line in your constant attacks on me and anyone who now refuses to support the takeover of yet another Arab country's resources by the same people who did it so successfully in Iraq.

How about the other dictators we are supporting? Worse than Qadaffi. If it is the people you care about, you're a bit late to the cause not just of the Libyans but the other countries whose dictators survive because of NATO's support. Sorry I don't trust the Western powers. As I said before, I hope a miracle happens and they suddenly become the altruistic, benign, caring entity you seem to think they are. But since the same entity is still slaughtering civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, my hopes for the Libyan people are not high.

How do you feel about the Brits having their military waiting offshore with 'boots' to 'put on the ground' in case 'they are needed' for 'peace-keeping'? Airc, you stated that if that happened, you would admit to being wrong. I'm willing to bet it will. How about you?

[joshcryer]

43. Where are your links? Provide them. I have plenty to back up what I say.

[sabrina 1]

46. What are you saying first? Are you saying that Qadaffi was not

threatening to cut the profits of the Oil Corporations? That he was not threatening, if he did not get what he wanted, to give bigger contracts to Russia and Germany? I don't know what it is you are denying. I will provide links to show that he was most definitely making those threats.

[joshcryer]

48. Nope, he did not nationalize, wasn't expected to, and the contracts were "favorable."

Please show me these supposed links that are made up propaganda from pro-Gaddafi sites.

[sabrina 1]

50. Bloomberg is a 'pro-Qadaffi' site?

First, I said he 'threatened' constantly, to cut the profits, to change the contracts so that Libya would get more of the profits than they were getting. He also threatened, see the Wikileaks cables, (hardly pro-Qadaffi, unless US diplomats' own words can be characterized that way) that if he did not get his way, he always had Russia and China waiting for more business in Libya. This kept the Western Corps in a constant state of fear. They tried using Saif as an intermediary, which sometimes worked, as Qadaffi was so unpredictable himself.

But to deny what was going on is is simply being willfully blind at this point.

Not to mention that Libya was on the PNAC list of seven countries to be 'reorganized' by the New World Order gang of war criminals. Sorry, I would not ever support condoning these criminals getting involved in any more Arab/Muslim/African or South American nations. They have wreaked havoc on the third world, killed untold millions of human beings in their pursuit of power and wealth. They need to be stopped, not encouraged. The tin-pot dictators they created could not in their wildest dreams do a fraction of the damage these dangerous idealoques have done and will continue to do so long as there are those who buy their propaganda. See the Iraq War.

[joshcryer]

58. He never did it, was never going to do it, and indeed was fully following the neoliberal...

...agenda.

[joshcryer]

40. It's actually more hilarious than that.

The person you responded to got http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4761236&mesg_id=4761288">exactly what they wanted.

[sabrina 1]

51. Wrong, what I wanted was for the Libyan people to

do this on their own. Now we know that that was never going to happen. As soon as the signs appeared that the usual suspects were involved, at first behind the scenes, now not even trying to hide it, 'special forces' from the US, France, Britain on the ground from way back, it was clear we were being fooled. This is not a people's revolution, it is another Western takeover of an oil producing Arab country. That is not what I 'wanted'. Not that what we want should matter, it should be up to those people. But now that our government is a part of the bombing and invasion of Libya it IS our business.

[joshcryer]

57. They did do it mostly on their own. All NATO did was destroy Russian armaments.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. No, it does not; it does not give the President permission to violate US law

Regardless of what the UN asks, by the UN Participation Act--which is the US law governing all participation in the United Nations--he may only respond to a UN call-up of forces if he already has Congressional authorization--by vote of both houses--to follow up on a special agreement.

He didn't have it.

As for the War Powers Resolution, he may ONLY introduce troops into hostilities or where they're imminent if Congress Declares War, if Congress Authorizes it or if WE'RE ATTACKED.

It's REALLY CLEAR. There's no room for debate at all. He may only go to war without Congress' vote IN BOTH HOUSES if we're attacked.

The timetables and reporting are follow-ups to a legal action. His action was by definition illegal.

[joshcryer]

59. Or if there is specific statutatory authorization.

:rofl:

[_ed_]

12. How can you possibly square this with the War Powers Act

or the Constitution? Really. Please cite actual law. If you're claiming that we think this is illegal just because we don't approve of it, then cite actual American jurisprudence to make your case.

The War Powers Act has a set number of days where the Pres. can wage limited war without Congressional approval. We were well over that time limit. Congress never acted.

How is this possibly legal?

[The Magistrate]

27. The United States Is Not Waging War In Libya, Sir

And has not been for some time. The United States is providing assistance to parties who are waging war, things like intelligence and communications facilitation, possibly munitions.

Not all military action is war, nor is there any established precedent regarding just what level of military action the War Powers Act applies to.

[PurityOfEssence]

55. "introduce US armed forces into hostilities..."

c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Department of Defense acknowledges that we were performing manned bombing attacks in Libya at least as late as June 18th.

You know this, don't you? Are you ignorant of this fact? A quick googling of the New York Times will confirm this.

The War Powers Resolution quite brilliantly defines what it considers "war", and it is the introduction of armed forces into hostilities or where they're imminent. This, by definition, rises to that benchmark.

Shame. Shame on this Administration, and shame on its watercarriers.

Din, Din, Din, where the devil have you been?

[Demeter]

30. I have always valued your Opinion Before, Sir

but we must part ways here. Consider the definitions of "Gangster":

1. A member of a gang of violent criminals.

2. A member of an organized group of criminals; a racketeer.

3. There are two types of "gangster":

1) A wannabe thug, often illiterate and an inhabitant of a downtrodden ghetto that hangs around in "gangs"; largely associated with the African-American subculture. These try-hard wanna be "gangstas" attempt to make themselves appear like real criminals by graffiting buildings, smoking/selling drugs and trying to looking all "bad-*** and macho an'-****, yo". An utter degradation of what true gangsters represent (see below), and street wannabe "gangsta"-types don't hold a candle to what real gangsters are.

2) The *real* gangsters are those behind organized crime; most notably the Mafia. Responsible for black-market trade, espionage, organized beatings/assassinations, etc. "The Godfather" portrays the archetype of true gangsters, showing the brutality of mob beatings, shootings, running rackets and abusing woman, alcohol and everything in between. The real gangsters are *not* to be confused with the aforementioned definition, commonly used as it might be.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071228145609AACtq2D

Now, consider the definition of "criminal activities" as listed in the previous paragraph. I submit that it really doesn't matter if it's Don Corleone or Ban Ki Moon or the puppetmasters behind Ban Ki Moon. If it's criminal, and they are organized, they are gangsters. No piece of fiction will make them otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

33. Again, Ma'am: Illegaiity Is Required For the Definition To Apply

What has been done in Libya is not illegal. That may be because the laws are made by the persons directing the actions, but that is a complaint so old as to be traditional.

As to whether what has been done by NATO in Libya is right or wrong, my view is more or less neutral: once the protests against Ghaddahfi, and his response to them, had reached a climax, no matter what happened a great many people were going to be killed, and the seeds of future instability and violence sown for the future. The only question really was who would be killed, and what pattern future instability would take, and how deep a root it would take. NATO intervention altered the likely roster of the dead; rather than being concentrated among residents of Cyrenaica, as initially portended, they have been spread pretty wide into members of the loyalist armed forces, and Tripolitiana. Future instability will consist of squabbles between factions of a heterogenous coalition in the throes of victory, rather than the plotting of vengeance against a government that killed many of a region's people in suppression of rebellion.

[joshcryer]

44. Correct, Misrata And Zawiya Showed That It Was Not Going To Go Away Quietly.

It really didn't matter if the world got involved or not, Gaddafi was not going to let go of power easily. It would've been a civil war that lasted a very long time.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. You are categorically wrong and you've had these proofs shown you again and again

People need to shed the idea that things they like aren't "illegal"; the laws in this case are very clear: Obama violated the UN Participation Act, the War Powers Resolution and went along with NATO violating its own rules.

Under the UN Participation Act of 1945 and its amendment in 1949, the President may only provide troops to the UN after both Houses of Congress have voted to approve. The President may make a "special agreement" with the Security Council to provide troops, but may NOT provide them until Congress has voted to authorize this special agreement. The President may send forces pursuant to an Article 42 call-up without Congress' approval, but ONLY IF CONGRESS HAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED SUCH AN AGREEMENT.

It's very clear under the UN Participation Act: Congress must approve a "special agreement" by vote of both houses before forces may be sent by the President.

The UN Charter is NOT a self-actuating treaty; the UN may scream, demand, beg, authorize, beseech, request or politely request forces, but United States LAW requires Congress to authorize the agreement by which they are sent. PERIOD.

The War Powers Resolution defines "war" as the introduction of armed forces into hostilities or where they are imminent. The President may ONLY send these forces under three circumstances: if Congress Declares War, if Congress authorizes such action or IF WE'RE ATTACKED. The President may ONLY send forces without Congress' prior authorization--by vote of both houses--if WE'RE ATTACKED.

Then there's NATO. NATO is a defensive organization, but it is a self-actuating treaty: if the conditions are met, the President may send forces without Congress' approval. The problem is that NATO is a treaty where member nations are authorized to retaliate IF A MEMBER NATION IS ATTACKED. The justification in Afghanistan is that the United States was attacked on 9-11-01. No such thing happened here. No such thing happened in Kosovo.

This is all very clear fact, not personal "feeling". The ignorance of these laws is disgusting, but the sanctimonious slap-downs are intolerable.

The only reason the Republicans haven't impeached him is that they hate the War Powers Resolution too, and are firmly convinced they'll have the Presidency again and can benefit from Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's flagrant violations of the law.

[The Magistrate]

56. You Are, Sir, Begining At Least To Back Into Acknowledgement These Things Fail Of Being Real Law

They may be passed, signed, and printed on statute books, but they have no mechanism of enforcement, and never will be enforced. As matters of practical fact, they bind no one, and no one in the Executive branch, of whatever party or persuasion, views them as binding, or ever has viewed them as binding. The traditional right of the Executive has been to deploy military force short of declared war at perceived need, or perceived national advantage, under authority of the commander in chief of the armed forces. Nothing is going to alter this, unless the whole shape of our government is altered along with it.

[Fuddnik]

15. We're going to pay for our leaders arrogance.

When the inevitable blowback occurs, all of the same cheerleaders will be asking, "Why do they hate us"?

Any body who believes we were on a humanitarian mission, line up and buy some stock in this bridge I'm selling.

[MedleyMisty]

38. I know why "they" hate the US

People who hate the US hate it because it oppresses and exploits them.

Libyans aren't like Americans. They're not ignorant cows who line up for the slaughter while watching Jersey Shore and talking about the latest Transformers movie. They're rather the opposite, in fact.

They are aware of Iraq and Afghanistan. They are aware of history and of political realities. They are also willing to go out into the streets and face imprisonment, torture, and death to win their freedom and dignity.

If you think that people who lived through 42 years of oppression and then found their strength and overcame a better trained and better armed force will allow a puppet government and/or an occupation, I've got a nice little bridge in Misrata to sell you. :) Say hi to the Misrata lions while you're there.

Note - if you don't get that reference, you have no business opining on Libya because you don't know enough about it to make judgments.

[Fuddnik]

42. Great post!

And I sincerely hope you're right about the Libyans resolve. They're gonna need it.

NATO is going to try to install their own puppet. Their own little Saddam or Ghadaffi. We've seen this show before.

[Demeter]

17. More like it's just become too blatant to paper over anymore

Long live the Internets.

[swilton]

35. Totally true

Even Rachel Maddow on David Letterman espouses the beneficial nature of this intervention.

[PurityOfEssence]

52. Yet another stupid moron article that completely misinterprets the War Powers Resolution

But a 1973 law — the War Powers Act — empowers the president to launch military operations unilaterally in the face of imminent threats.

What ridiculous bullshit: this is saying that the War Powers Resolution INCREASED the President's ability to wage war on his own. That's precisely not what the Act does, and is in direct contradiction to the whole point of the law, which is the standing interpretation of the Constitution on the subject and the LAW OF THE LAND.

The War Powers Resolution was passed--over Nixon's veto--to prevent Presidents from launching operations unilaterally.

The President may NOT start a conflict in the face of an imminent threat. It's VERY specific. War is defined as introducing armed forces into hostilities or where they may be imminent, and the President's legal ability to do so is specifically defined to be allowed ONLY under three circumstances: Declaration of War by Congress, Authorization by Congress or IF WE'RE ATTACKED.

The ONLY situation where a President may introduce armed forces into hostilities without Congress' vote to do so is if we're attacked, PERIOD.

The grotesque idiocy of this article makes it sound like Congress wanted to give Nixon greater latitude for war-making. That's imbecilic; they were trying to clip his wings and reassert the Constitution's enumerated power back to Congress. This is intolerable.